Download Wake HM 1AR v MSU HR Ky semis

Now if they win their politics links, it means that Congress innately prefers inaction – means
the commission will never occur because the Courts can’t create one or set it up – Courts have
no enforcement capabilities
Pacelle, poli sci prof and legal studies coordinator at the univ of Missouri at St. Louis, 2k2
[Richard, The Role of the Supreme Court in American Politics: The Least Dangerous Branch?, p81]
Even if the Supreme Court was to carve out some sphere of power for itself, there would be significant
limitations. Any Court decision has to be enforced, but enforcement power is the province of the president and
the executive branch. Thus, the Court is at their mercy. If the president does not like the decision, he does not
have to enforce it. Indeed, history books report that Andrew Jackson, upset at the Worcester v. Georgia (1832) decision, growled that “John
Marshall made his decision, now let him enforce it.” There was concern that Dwight Eisenhower would not back the Brown decision when the Southern
states resisted. Ultimately, though quite reluctantly, Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock to support the decision. What if the Court’s decision
requires active policy intervention and the allocation of resources to help carry out the directives? If the courts
determine that prisons are overcrowded or schools are substandard, will the legislature, which has the taxing and spending power, be willing to raise and
spend money to correct the problem? It took a decade before serious legislative support for the Brown decision was provided. Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 empowered the government to cut off federal funds to school districts that did not comply with the desegregation directive (Halpern 1995,
30—59). The bottom line is the adage “the Court lacks the sword and the purse”—it lacks the ability to enforce its
decisions and the power over the resources to do so. This places a limitation on the justices. If they stray too far
from the acceptable boundaries set by Congress or the president, they risk a negative response from the
branches with the real power. If the Court can safely be ignored by the other branches and the public, the cost
is its institutional legitimacy.
Competitiveness is a myth
Paul Krugman, Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Nobel Prize Winner in
Economics, March/April 1994, (Paul, Foreign Affairs, “Competitiveness: A Dangerous Obsession,”)
for an economy that conducted very little international trade, like the United States in the 1950s. For such
an economy, the ability to balance its trade is mostly a matter of getting the exchange rate right. But because trade is such a
small factor in the economy, the level of the exchange rate is a minor influence on the standard of living. So in an economy
with very little international trade, the growth in living standards-and thus "competitiveness" according to Tyson's definition -- would be
determined almost entirely by domestic factors, primarily the rate of productivity growth. That's domestic productivity growth, period -- not productivity growth
relative to other countries. In other words, for an economy with very little international trade, "competitiveness" would turn out to be a funny way of saying "productivity" and would
have nothing to do with international competition. But surely this changes when trade becomes more important , as indeed it has for all major
economies? It certainly could change. Suppose that a country finds that although its productivity is steadily rising, it can succeed in exporting only if it repeatedly devalues its currency, selling its exports
Consider, for a moment, what the definition would mean
ever more cheaply on world markets. Then its standard of living, which depends on its purchasing power over imports as well as domestically produced goods, might actually decline. In the jargon of
economists, domestic growth might be outweighed by deteriorating terms of trade. n2 So "competitiveness" could turn out really to be about international competition after all. There is no reason,
has the rate
of growth of U.S. real income continued essentially to equal the rate of domestic productivity growth, even
though trade is a larger share of income than it used to be? To answer this question, one need only look at the national
income accounts data the Commerce Department publishes regularly in the Survey of Current Business. The standard measure of economic growth in the United States is, of course, real
however, to leave this as a pure speculation; it can easily be checked against the data. Have deteriorating terms of trade in fact been a major drag on the U.S. standard of living? Or
GNP -- a measure that divides the value of goods and services produced in the United States by appropriate price indexes to come up with an estimate of real national output. The Commerce Department
also, however, publishes something called "command GNP." This is similar to real GNP except that it divides U.S. exports not by the export price index, but by the price index for U.S. imports. That is,
exports are valued by what Americans can buy with the money exports bring. Command GNP therefore measures the volume of goods and services the U.S. economy can "command" the nation's
purchasing power rather than the volume it produces. n3 And as we have just seen, "competitiveness" means something different from "productivity" if and only if purchasing power grows significantly
Over the period 1959-73, a period of vigorous growth in U.S. living standards and few
concerns about international competition, real GNP per worker-hour grew 1.85 percent annually, while command GNP per hour
grew a bit faster, 1.87 percent. From 1973 to 1990, a period of stagnating living standards, command GNP growth per hour
slowed to 0.65 percent. Almost all (91 percent) of that slowdown, however, was explained by a decline in domestic
productivity growth: real GNP per hour grew only 0.73 percent. Similar calculations for the European Community and Japan field similar results. In
each case, the growth rate of living standards essentially equals the growth rate of domestic productivity -- not productivity relative to competitors, but simply
domestic productivity. Even though world trade is larger than ever before, national living standards are
overwhelmingly determined by domestic factors rather than by some competition for world markets. How can this be in our interdependent world? Part of the
answer is that the world is not as interdependent as you might think: countries are nothing at all like corporations. Even today, U.S.
exports are only 10 percent of the value-added in the economy (which is equal to GNP). That is, the United States is still almost 90 percent an economy
that produces goods and services for its own use. By contrast, even the largest corporation sells hardly any of its output to its own workers ;
more slowly than output. Well, here are the numbers.
the "exports" of General Motors -- its sales to people who do not work there -- are virtually all of its sales, which are more than 2.5 times the corporation's value-added. Moreover, countries do not compete
with each other the way corporations do. Coke and Pepsi are almost purely rivals: only a negligible fraction of Coca-Cola's sales go to Pepsi workers, only a negligible fraction of the goods Coca-Cola
major industrial countries, while they sell products that
compete with each other, are also each other's main export markets and each other's main suppliers of useful
workers buy are Pepsi products. So if Pepsi is successful, it tends to be at Coke's expense. But the
imports. If the European economy does well, it need not be at U.S. expense; indeed, if anything a successful European
economy is likely to help the U.S. economy by providing it with larger markets and selling it goods of superior
quality at lower prices. International trade, then, is not a zero-sum game. When productivity rises in Japan, the main result is a rise in Japanese real
wages; American or European wages are in principle at least as likely to rise as to fall, and in practice seem to be virtually unaffected. It would be possible to belabor the point, but the moral is clear: while
competitive problems could arise in principle, as a practical, empirical matter the major nations of the world are not to any significant degree in economic competition with each other. Of course, there is
always a rivalry for status and power -- countries that grow faster will see their political rank rise. So it is always interesting to compare countries. But asserting that Japanese growth diminishes U.S. status
is very different from saying that it reduces the U.S. standard of living -- and it is the latter that the rhetoric of competitiveness asserts.
Lol
There’s no uniqueness - Global cooling is the overall trend
Taylor ‘9 Senior Fellow of The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News
/James M, March, Environment and Climate News, “Global Cooling Continues”, The Heartland Institute,
Google/
Continuing a decade-long trend of declining global temperatures, the year 2008 was significantly colder than 2007,
and global temperatures for the year were below the average over the past 30 years. The global temperature data, reported by NASA
satellite-based temperature measurements, refuted predictions 2008 would be one of the warmest on record. Data show 2008
ranked 14th coldest of the 30 years measured by NASA satellite instruments since they were first launched in 1979. It was the coldest year
since 2000. (See accompanying figure.) Satellite Precision NASA satellites uniformly monitor the Earth’s lower atmosphere, which greenhouse gas
theory predicts will show the first and most significant effects of human-caused global warming. The satellite-based measurements are
uncorrupted by urban heat islands and localized land-use changes that often taint records from surface temperature stations, giving false
indications of warming. The uncorrupted satellite-based temperature measurements refute surface temperature station
data finding 2008 to be one of the top 10 warmest years on record. “How can an ‘average year’ in one database appear to be a
[top 10] warmest year in another?” asked meteorologist Joe D’Aleo on his International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project Web
site. “Well, the global databases of [surface station reports] are all contaminated by urbanization, major station dropout, missing
data, bad siting, instruments with known warm biases being introduced without adjustment, and black-box and man-made adjustments designed to
maximize [reported] warming,” explained D’Aleo. Warming Trend Overstated “The substantial and continuing La Niña cooled the
Earth quite a bit in 2008, to the point that it was slightly below the 30-year average [1979-2008] but slightly above the 20-year average [1979-
1998],” said John Christy, distinguished professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama
in Huntsville (UAH). “From research we have published, and more to come soon, we find that land surface air temperatures
misrepresent the actual temperature changes in the deep atmosphere—where the greenhouse effect is anticipated to have its
easiest impact to measure. Surface thermometers are affected by many influences, especially surface development, so the bulk atmospheric
measurements from satellites offer a straightforward indicator of how much heat is or is not accumulating in
the air,
published evidence also supports the long-term trends of UAH as being
fairly precise, so the observed rate of warming is noticeably less than that projected by the IPCC ‘Best Estimate’
model simulations which, we hypothesize, are too sensitive to CO2 increases,” Christy added.
for whatever reason,” Christy explained. “Recent
But they cause faster warming – because large emission reductions remove sulfate aerosols
which cool the Earth
Lovelock ‘9, Consultant of NASA, former president of the Marine Biological Association, and Honorary
Visiting Fellow of Green Templeton College, Oxford (James, The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning:
Enjoy it While You Can, 55-56
In 2004, two IPCC contributors, Peter Cox and Meinrat Andreae, raised the question: What
happens to global warming if this
pollution haze suddenly disappears? Their paper in Nature warned that if the haze disappeared, global heating would intensify,
and dangerous change could be the consequence. In 2008, a group led by Peter Scott, from the Hadley Centre (part of the
Meterological Office), examined this phenomenon in a careful and wall-drawn paper in the journal Tellus: "global dimming," they revealed, is
complex, even as a purely geophysical problem. According to their calculations the sudden removal of haze could lead to either a modest or a
severe increase of heating. I know begin to see why my wise friend Robert Charlson is so loath to commit himself on pollution aerosols and
climate change. Even so, there was little doubt among any of these distinguished climate scientists that the present pollution haze reduces global heating,
or that its sudden removal could have serious consequences. I suspect that we worry less about global heating than about a global economic crash, and
forget that we could make both events happen together if we implemented an immediate, global 60 percent reduction of emissions.
This would
cause a rapid fall in fossil fuel consumption, and most of the particles that make the atmospheric
aerosol would within weeks fall from the air. This would greatly simplify prediction and we could at last be fairly sure that global
temperature would rise; the removal of the pollution aerosol would leave the gaseous greenhouse unobstructed and
free at last to devastate what was left of the comfortable interglacial Earth. Yes, if we implemented in full the
recommendations made at Bali within a year, far from stabilizing the climate, it could grow hotter not cooler. This is why I said in The
Revenge of Gaia, "We live in a fool's climate and are damned whatever we do."
CO2 stays in the air longer than SO2 – that means there is only a risk of fast warming if we stop
emitting Monastersky, 91 – Richard, Staff writer for Business Net News, “CO2 limits may initially worsen
warming - carbon dioxide and global warming”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n7_v139/ai_10381518
Policies designed to control fossil-fuel emissions might temporarily hasten the greenhouse warming before ultimately limiting the global temperature
rise, according to calculations by climate researcher Tom Wigley. Yet that possibility should not deter efforts to control greenhouse-gas emissions, he
says. Wigley, of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, says the real message of his findings is that success will not come easily. "It might take decades for even a strong
policy to produce some noticeable response," he says. More Articles of Interest Polluted dust storms reduce global warming Stay tuned. (Washington Briefs).(Senate Environment Committee plans to
limit... NWF Urges Congress To Pass Clean Power Act - Brief Article Sulfur-climate link called insignificant Releasing Sulfur to the Atmosphere Could Counter Global Warming Related Results
Polluted dust storms reduce global warming Greenhouse gases Warming hysteria.(LETTERS) Stay tuned. (Washington Briefs).(Senate Environment Committee plans to limit... NWF Urges
Congress To Pass Clean Power Act - Brief Article advertisement Wigley's calculations spotlight a highly uncertain arena in climate-change scenarios: the influence of sulfur dioxide (SN: 8/25/90, p.118).
sulfur dioxide turns into tiny sulfate droplets
that reflect sunlight back toward space. These sulfate "aerosols" also cool the Earth's surface indirectly by
making clouds more reflective. Scientists don't know the strength of such cooling effects, especially the effect
on clouds. But if sulfate aerosols have an important influence, policies that limit fossil-fuel use would
exert two opposing forces on the climate by reducing emissions of both the warning gas and the cooling
gas. To investigate the outcome of that tug-of-war, Wigley calculated how various pollution controls would
affect the carbon dioxide "forcing" and the sulfate aerosol "forcing." His study, detailed in the Feb. 7 NATURE,
represents the first attempt to quantify the impact of both direct and indirect aerosol effects. Because
carbon forcing appears to dominate aerosol forcing, a policy that cuts emissions would
eventually limit a temperature rise. But Wigley found that the aerosol effect would delay the climate's
response to any emissions control strategy and would reduce the overall effectiveness of such policies. Since
the cooling power of sulfate aerosols remains unknown, Wigley tested a range of cases. In a scenario where
aerosols exerted considerable effect, fossil-fuel limitations enhanced greenhouse warming for more than three
decades before beginning to slow the temperature rise. That's because carbon dioxide stays in the
atmosphere for more than 100 years, while aerosols fall out within days. Thus, controls would
rapidly reduce the aerosol cooling, and only later begin to curb the carbon dioxide warming, he
found
Like carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide is produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. But while carbon dioxide gas traps heat,
Nitrogen emissions from fossil fuel use are key to ocean biodiversity and cancelling out
warming
Texas A&M ‘8 /“ATMOSPHERE THREATENED BY OCEAN POLLUTANTS,” Targeted News Service, May 15,
Lexis/
A large quantity of nitrogen compounds -- emitted into the atmosphere by humans through the burning of fossil fuels
and the use of nitrogen fertilizers -- enters the oceans and may lead to the removal of some carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere, concluded a team of international scientists led by Texas A&M University Distinguished Professor of Oceanography and Atmospheric
Sciences Robert Duce. The team of 30 experts from institutions around the world presented its conclusions in the current issue of the journal Science.
Human-caused atmospheric nitrogen compounds are carried by wind and deposited into the ocean, where they act as a
fertilizer and lead to increased production of marine plant life. The increase in plant life causes more carbon dioxide to be drawn from the atmosphere
into the ocean. This process results in the removal of about 10 percent of the human-caused carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere, thus potentially reducing the climate warming potential, according to the team's paper.
Robin Kundis Craig, Associate Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law, 2k3 34 McGeorge L. Rev.
155
Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for
terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For example,
besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide,
worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other environmental fluctuations, services worth
more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. n856 Waste treatment is another significant, nonextractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. n857 More generally, "ocean
ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the basic
building blocks of living organisms, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less
abundant but necessary elements." n858 In a very real and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of
marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to support life. Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to
maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem's
ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity, "indicating that
more diverse ecosystems are more stable." n859 Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their
biodiversity. [*265] Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness
among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This implies that the
ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued components is also complex and that many
otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef system. n860 Thus,
maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the
ecosystem services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated
in the wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. n861 Similar calculations could derive
preservation values for marine wilderness. However, economic value, or economic value equivalents, should
not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also
have considerable force and merit." n862 At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how
little we know about the sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The United
States has traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic
harm to the oceans, but we now know that such harm is occurring - even though we are not completely sure
about causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem should
inspire lawmakers and policymakers to admit that most of the time we really do not know what we are doing to
the sea and hence should be preserving marine wilderness whenever we can - especially when the United States
has within its territory relatively pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world. We may not
know much about the sea, but we do know this much: if we kill the ocean we kill ourselves, and we will take
most of the biosphere with us. The Black Sea is almost dead, n863 its once-complex and productive ecosystem
almost entirely replaced by a monoculture of comb jellies, "starving out fish and dolphins, emptying
fishermen's nets, and converting the web of life into brainless, wraith-like blobs of jelly." n864 More
importantly, the Black Sea is not necessarily unique. The Black Sea is a microcosm of what is happening to the
ocean systems at large. The stresses piled up: overfishing, oil spills, industrial discharges, nutrient pollution,
wetlands destruction, the introduction of an alien species. The sea weakened, slowly at first, then collapsed
with [*266] shocking suddenness. The lessons of this tragedy should not be lost to the rest of us, because
much of what happened here is being repeated all over the world. The ecological stresses imposed on the Black
Sea were not unique to communism. Nor, sadly, was the failure of governments to respond to the emerging
crisis. n865 Oxygen-starved "dead zones" appear with increasing frequency off the coasts of major cities and
major rivers, forcing marine animals to flee and killing all that cannot. n866 Ethics as well as enlightened selfinterest thus suggest that the United States should protect fully-functioning marine ecosystems wherever
possible - even if a few fishers go out of business as a result.
CO2 only 2% of warming
Lindzen, 92 – Professor of Meteorology at MIT
(Global Climate Change, pg. 110, Y4.EN2:S.Hrg.102-808, May 6 and 12)
Dr. LINDZEN. That is the point. We have done calculations where we, for other reasons, increase CO2 20 times and we
actually expected a profound effect. We found even then water vapor swamped the whole behavior of the
system. There are reasons for it, and they don’t add up. You can’t just linearly add them.
The CHAIRMAN. There are just a lot of unanswered questions, of course, in this.
Dr. LINDZEN. No. It is not an unanswered question. You take CO2 out of the system. You are still left with 98
percent of the greenhouse effect.